Reviews

I can see why some viewers criticized this film; it's not a conventional story in which everything is wrapped up neatly at the end. It is, rather, a character study of five women caught in a job few if any of them really want to be doing, struggling with the frustration of chasing dreams that may never be realized. It is achingly like real life. I suppose it might be difficult for many men to relate to these characters--the stars are all women, and the male characters are peripheral at best, with the exception of the long-awaited star who makes an appearance near the end. On the other hand, the feeling of chasing a dream and seeing it always beyond reach is universal, isn't it? except for a very few fortunate people who realize their ambitions fully.

The workplace dynamics add another layer to the drama; although the manager is not always a sympathetic character, it is possible to see how difficult her job must be in trying to manage dysfunctional people who ignore about half of her requests and mock her efforts to get them to work as a team.

It's not for everyone, and the people who turned it off after the first half hour are probably right in that it's not for them. But I have a feeling I'll be thinking about this for a while, much longer than I would a more conventional movie.

This is a fun movie for the reasons other reviewers note--the action and suspense, the silly idea of the diplomat's daughter becoming a spy, the bright colors. But the "action" scenes are beyond ridiculous; "Kitten" escapes from dangerous situations by the most unbelievable luck. In one scene, for example, she's drugged and wakes up supposedly paralyzed by the drug. But when the baddie tries to throw her off the balcony, with one feeble hand she manages to pull him up, over the balcony, and throw him below. Umm, how? In another scene, she's chased into a room by two baddies, screaming at the top of her lungs, but a moment later she's crawling around behind the furniture and they can't find her! It's completely absurd, but the movie gives no nod to how silly it is, just plunges forward.

I researched this question a few years ago, and here's what I remember about the DNA evidence: it showed that some, but not all, of Sally's children were related to a male Jefferson. Maybe Thomas, maybe another one.

And the newspaper reporter who wrote the story was a disappointed office-seeker who had a grudge against Jefferson.

Given this, I'm somewhat amused by the vehemence with which both sides defend their point of view: those (few) who proclaim that Jefferson could not have been involved with his slave this way, and those many who not only accept the relationship as proved but go on to state that it either must have been or could not possibly have been a romance.

For what it's worth, I think the preponderance of evidence supports that there was a sexual relationship that produced children. Beyond that, I don't know if the 14-year-old Sally fell in love with this remarkable man or if in his private life he was capable of raping his slave. Given that her oldest child wasn't a Jefferson, the "tradition" that their relationship began in Paris seems suspect.

Finally, Jefferson himself simply refused to address the embarrassing newspaper reports. Everyone involved is long dead, and we'll probably never know for sure. Such is the nature of history (some of the time).